Vetoing the Dream In Support of Brexit

Being a White Nationalist, I of course hope that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. It may or may not be good for Britain to leave the EU. That outcome depends entirely on how the British use their restored national sovereignty. But that’s really the whole point, isn’t it? Namely, that Britain’s destiny should be controlled for better or worse by its own people, through its own political institutions, not by the EU leadership.

Given Britain’s present leadership and course, the future looks grim no matter what the outcome of the Brexit referendum. But British nationalism could rise again and set things right. However, the purpose of the EU is to stifle nationalism. Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has vowed to use “far-reaching sanctions” to block nationalist-populist parties from coming to power. Thus if nationalism is ever to rise in Britain — or among the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Ulstermen — it is better to have Brussels out of the picture.

Regardless of what the British do with their restored sovereignty — and again, the whole point of sovereignty is to make it their business, not mine or the EU’s — Brexit will definitely be bad for the European Union. Greenland, which had no business being in the EU anyway, left in 1982, but Brexit would be the first significant defection, the first major setback, a triumph of disunity over unity, a blow to the prestige and morale of the European project. And that is a good thing for European nationalism. Thus the Czech Republic’s Prime Minister, Bohuslav Sobotka, has drawn the obvious conclusion that Brexit would empower separatist and nationalist forces all over Europe.

Nationalists believe that racial and cultural identity are the highest political values, which is why some of us call ourselves identitarians. Whenever identity conflicts with commerce, individual self-expression, the interests of factions and classes, or civic patriotism in multicultural states, identity must always win out. In any conflict, the common good of the people must trump individual interests, and the common good of the race must trump individual nations.

Racial and cultural identities are by nature plural. Identity implies difference. Nationalists believe that racial and cultural diversity are good things, which need to be protected by creating, wherever possible, sovereign racially and culturally homogeneous homelands, which we call ethnostates. (White ethnostates should always be spoken of in the plural, because there are many different white nations.)

Multicultural states, by contrast, are bad for racial and cultural diversity. Different peoples living in the same system inevitably experience tensions and conflicts. This friction can have three possible outcomes. First, the different parties can see reason and separate amicably, as in the Czech and Slovak “velvet divorce.” Second, ethnic frictions can flare up into violence and bloodshed, which can lead to ethnic cleansing and the establishment of ethnostates, which is what happened in the former Yugoslavia. Third, if ethnic tensions are prevented from flaring into violence by hard tyranny or soft commerce, all distinctions will be erased by racial and cultural amalgamation, like rocks tumbling in a polisher until their sharp corners and rough edges are completely worn away.

The European Union, by suppressing conflict and promoting the free movement of goods and peoples, will eventually lead to the destruction of distinct European identities and the emergence of a monstrous, deracinated “homogeneous European man,” i.e., the ugly Americanization of Europe. And that’s thebest case scenario, since it presupposes a European Union committed to keeping Europe European and defending Europe’s borders against the burgeoning populations of Africa and the Muslim world.

But the European Union is doing precisely the opposite. It is preventing member states from defending their borders against armies of migrants and pressuring member states to accept migrants as “refugees.” The EU wants to bring in Turkey, a nation of nearly 80 million Muslims with porous Eastern borders, which would open the floodgates wider. And it is trying to thwart Central and Eastern European nations what wish to preserve themselves from the alarming demographic trends in the West. If the EU continues on its present course, the white race will become extinct in its homeland. Thus the EU must be destroyed, and nationalists should take every opportunity to bleed and beat this beast. Brexit is a golden opportunity to do just that.

Of course if the EU were dissolved tomorrow, that alone would not save Europe. The EU elites who are promoting white genocide would simply carry on their work in their native countries. The same policies, moreover, are being pushed in non-EU countries by their native elites. Indeed, it might be impossible to save Germany, Belgium, France, or Sweden. But the enemy would be humiliated, demoralized, and deprived of their chief means to destroy the Central and Eastern European countries that have the will and the leadership to survive.

What about the main rationale for the European Union, namely preventing another European “brothers’ war”? First, the EU is not the only way to prevent another European war. Surely we can find a better way to harmonize particular national interests with the larger good of the race, but not before the present monstrosity is dynamited and cleared away. Second, the EU is actually creating the conditions for a Europe-wide conflagration, for millions of non-white, mostly Muslim immigrants will make war and ethnic cleansing inevitable. The only question is whether Europeans will win or lose. Third, even if the EU were Europe’s only chance to prevent another war, it still needs to be destroyed. Europe, after all, recovered from the World Wars. But it will not recover from genocide by ethnic replacement. I would rather risk another World War than acquiesce to the inevitable extinction of my race on its native soil.

One way that the EU promotes ugly Americanization is by making it easy for people to leave their homelands to chase money or flee troubles. Thus Brexit would not just help Europe as a whole by harming the EU, it would also benefit the former Soviet bloc states in particular. Because of the EU, many thousands of Eastern Europeans are living and working in the UK in search of better wages. Indeed, until the current migrant crisis, most of these nations had no immigration problems at all. They had emigration problems, primarily the emigration of young people, the people who are most crucial for ensuring the futures of their nations. If Britain leaves the EU, let’s hope these people will return home, start families, and help Make Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, etc. Great Again. Or, rather, keep them great.

While the EU has allowed many thousands of Eastern Europeans to move to the UK, it has also allowed many thousands of Britons to free their troubles by moving to other EU countries. Now that Germany is being flooded by Muslims, Germans are fleeing to Hungary. It is perfectly natural for people to leave their homelands to pursue money and avoid conflict. But their motives — greed, cowardice, and rootlessness — are not admirable and should not be encouraged or accommodated. Brexit would close that door. It would force the British to face their problems rather than flee them, which is the only way Britain will be saved.

The same is true of Germany. Individual Hungarians are probably delighted with the money that Germans are bringing, but Hungary’s leadership should regard them as plague rats, in the same way as Oregonians and Washingtonians regard the Californians who are fleeing the mess they made of America’s greatest state and then demanding the same failed policies be replicated. Those Germans who think that Merkel is destroying their homeland should go back and fight to stop her.

There is a great deal of discussion in the UK about the economic consequences of Brexit. I have two things to say to that. First, businessmen, politicians, and economists always lie about numbers. So you simply can’t base a rational decision on anything they say. Second, even if the worst case scenarios are true, countless men laid down their lives to defend British sovereignty. If you can’t even risk a bit of dosh for your country’s freedom, then you are an unworthy descendant of greater men.

23 Comments

I don’t always agree with Dr. Johnson’s ‘take’ on racial matters, but this article was excellent. It says just about everything that needed saying.

My only disagreement – but it is a foundational one – is with this sentence:

“Multicultural states, by contrast, are bad for racial and cultural diversity. Different peoples living in the same system inevitably experience tensions and conflicts. This friction can have three possible outcomes.”

Yes, literally it is true. But I reject this “multiculturalism of the Right” approach. Multicultural states may indeed be “bad for [true] diversity”, but that does not mean they are bad in themselves. It depends on the “diversity” in question, doesn’t it?

The issue for white nationalists is not the maximization or even preservation of “diversity”, but the survival of the white race (along with various subsets of that race, like Western Civilization and particular white ethnocultures). We do not want nonwhite “diversity” because it threatens that survival, as well as lowers the sheer quality of life for whites.

But what about the other way? Many nonwhite peoples might well like “white diversity” injected into their countries (provided it was commercial and not colonial). Whites improve conditions wherever we go. Would Haitians object if whites started moving there, injecting money and skills and lawful behavioral norms into a very backward country?

It may be, in a strange sense, “PC” to imply that ‘diversity’ is always bad, but such racial egalitarianism is false. It is whites more than any others for whom racial diversity is a net negative.

Countries which lack human capital (ex: skilled workers, engineers, doctors, etc..) benefit if they receive people from countries which possess an abundance of human capital. (Benefits would include not just a higher economic growth rate, but also less income inequality.) Suppose we call this ‘good migration’.

Countries which enjoy an abundance of human capital, are worse off when they receive an influx from countries with low human capital – since this pushes down wages of unskilled workers and increases income inequality – with negative consequences that have been expounded elsewhere (such as ‘The Spirit Level’.) Lets call this ‘bad migration’.

Some practical applications:

In the past, England, Germany and Holland benefited mightily from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes which provoked the exodus of the Hugenots from France (who were generally recognized as a skilled and entrepreneurial community). It may be argued that the assimilation of the Hugenots in their new homes was assisted by the shared faith (Protestantism), but nonetheless, as Latins, the Hugenots were culturally different from the Anglo-Saxons, Teutons, Dutch, etc…

More recently, the influx of skilled workers and professionals from Europe and Asia to the oil-rich Persian Gulf States has certainly contributed mightily to the prosperity of the region. While there may be Arabs who lament their children being ‘Westoxified’ and not being able to speak the language properly, I’d doubt they’d want to exchange their cadillacs for camels, and their palaces for tents.

In contrast, Europe and the United States today are examples of ‘bad migration’ – immigration that is driven not by any national economic interest, but by vested interests pursuing profit (through cheap labour) at the expense of society. Of course, these vested interests also finance the political establishment to perpetuate the racket, and finance media and academia to brainwash the public about the ‘benefits’ of bad migration.

This is the sort of reactionary nonsense that we get from the Daily Mail. Insular nationalist arguments for fragmentation and disunity. It’s not a million Poles that’s the problem but untold millions of blacks and Asians from the former British Empire. Britain lost all sovereignty in 1944 when tied the pound to the dollar and placed our armed forces under American control. In or out of the EU we are part of a global capitalist system with no interest in race or nationality. Britain leaving the EU makes as much sense as New York leaving the United States. As for the EU being undemocratic – thank God for that. Separatism and petty statism are not the answer. I heard this tribal nonsense in South Africa in the sixties when the Brits thought they were a cut above the Afrikaners and the Portuguese. The result was the loss of Rhodesia, Mozambique and finally South Africa – white nations that failed to stand together. There is no conspiracy. Mass migration in Europe and North America is all about cheap labour and some of those waving national flags and shouting populist slogans are the ones hiring them. Le Pen and Trump will not save the white race and we will achieve nothing by going back to the nineteenth century.

So what does this so great EU currently have planned and currently do:

– Has on the agenda allowing Visa free travel between Turkey and the EU and the long term goal of Visa free travel between Europe and North Africa.

– ‘Anti-racist’ propaganda initatives, indoctrination of the young and hate speech legistlation in Central and Eastern European countries which out of the EU would not pursue them

– Creating a multinational army which would be stationed around EU countries.

Q: How do you think things are going to work out if, hypothetically, a party like Jobbik won a tighlty thought election in Hungary then would it be in Hungary’s interests to have French Morrocan, Philosemite British or anti-nationalist German troops statioend there (in addition to a multiracial American contingent

– University grants to Eastern European students (future leaders of society) to study in Western Europe where they get indoctrinated that the Western rootless cosmopolitian garbage

Are we blind to not recognise that this insitutuion staffed from the top down by rootless cosmo-globalists can be altered into being Patriotic and Pro-White?

The EU is a rotten institutions which needs to be taken down. Once the EU is dispensed of them then things can be started a fresh and cooperation can take place which is in the National and Patriotic interests of the countries and not the ideoloigcal interests of rootless cosmopolitian apparatchiks. This is already taking place in Central and Eastern Europe.

The concept of a ‘Europe of Nations’ or to it’s full extent ‘Europe a Nation’ are not exactly bad concepts but the EU is not and will never be a positive vehicle for Pro-White patriots.

Gabor Vona the leader of Jobbik, the third largest party in the Hungarian National Assembly, has posted a message on Facebook saying that leaving the EU is no longer on the agenda. His supporters used to burn the Euro flag at demonstrations but they are now ready to cooperate with like-minded parties throughout Europe to reform the EU. Angela Merkel has been forced to backtrack and politicians of all parties are starting to respond to public opinion. I repeat, there is no conspiracy.

Yes, nonwhite immigrants are obviously a greater threat to white preservation than white ones. But the point of the article in part was that the policy of open (internal) borders mandated by the EU serves to reduce identitarian consciousness in ALL European peoples, and that that is a race-weakening thing. WPs don’t want Poles de-ethnicizing themselves in the UK, but rather living out their lives as proud Polish patriots (and we hope by extension, white race patriots, too) in Poland.

The restoration of the ethnic identities of the historic European fatherlands is a key element in not merely nationalist preference, but white racial perpetuity.

At first glance, the idea would seem absurd: how could the loss of one of its most powerful and valuable members possibly strengthen an increasingly discredited entity like the EU?

Yet, it could do that by giving it a common enemy to rally against: the Anglosphere.

One can imagine EU élites, in the wake of a Brexit, pushing for ever-closer union in defence and other matters, now that British objections are no longer of any concern. This would, sooner or later, propel them to leave/dismantle NATO and emerge as an independent power bloc.

They might even go further and encourage Scottish separatism (if I’m not mistaken, there’s strong pro-EU sentiment in Scotland – so much so that the Scottish nationalists declare that they will press for a new independence referendum in the wake of a Brexit). Within a decade, we could end up with an England outside the EU next to an independent Scotland that is inside it.

The result of this could be the rupturing of the Trans-Atlantic alliance – with anti-Americanism/Anglophobia serving as a binding ideology for the EU – a shared hatred that unites its (increasingly intermixed) indigenous and Muslim populations – and also deflects public hostility away from Europe’s élites…

I’m probably being too pessimistic though: judging by the sheer incompetence of the bureaucrats in Brussels, Brexit is more likely to herald the beginning of the end of the EU. However, given Europe’s recent misfortunes, worst-case scenarios should not be ignored…

The idea that Brexit will strengthen the EU is utterly absurd on the face of it.

Yes, I am sure that in the bunker in Brussels, the EU leaders will be cursing the Anglo-Saxons, but all over Europe, nationalist and separatist forces will be celebrating and vying to be the nation that takes the next slice out of the EU.

I support Scottish independence anyway, and if they join the EU, it is hardly a consolation for the loss of a much bigger country.

Just like how the Baghdad Pact evaporated after Iraq left, so likewise, Brussels-based NATO will probably cease to exist if the EU nations leave it – since the exit of the Continental Europeans would reduce it to a collection of Anglosphere nations plus Turkey – hardly an alliance worth preserving, (especially as Washington pivots away from West Asia towards East Asia).

Brexit would seem to be the EU’s make-or-break moment, following which it either shatters or consolidates. However, it’s plausible that we will see a mixture of the two: peripheral parts of the EU will fall off (Greece, Hungary, maybe Denmark) – but a core will remain intact – the main eurozone states. With perfidious Albion out of the way, they could indeed get serious about political and military integration – as a result of which, their relationship with the Anglosphere will be increasingly competitive. Under such circumstances, NATO’s days will be numbered.

Of course, one may claim that Brexit will unleash a domino effect that will be so strong as to result in even France leaving the EU (that really would be the end of it). But Britain has an alternative to the EU in the form of the Anglosphere: France does not.

“What about the main rationale for the European Union, namely preventing another European “brothers’ war”? First, the EU is not the only way to prevent another European war.”

It’s pretty damn close to the only way . No not this particular EU, but c’mon. What’s to stop a separatist UK (or any other major Euro nation) teaming up with the likes of China to carve up Europe… a situation we’ve seen many times before.

The only way for a realistic Europe “of brothers” is to have a band of brothers AKA a grand European Army. Anything else is kidding yourself… as it will just be a Europe of cousins and a world of 2nd cousins.

I believe that, too. The world is too bound together by mass communications, and people are herd- like creatures (even ‘individualistic’ whites). When political momentum starts in one direction, it’s amazing how many people abandon critical thinking to jump on the popular bandwagon.

Brexit will indeed help Le Pen, Trump, and similar persons (or mass-perceived similars – I think both Trump and Le Pen are rather weak as nationalists, both more civic than ethno-nationalists).

Brits should vote to leave because of the Ghost clique (Brussels) who created this medusa making ubiquitous and implementing laws against its own citizens. Not because they are anti-“Europe” Don’t forget it was Winston Churchill and Sir Oswald Moseley who invoked the term of a United Europe. Also for over 60 years immigration into Britain was used by all parties and business to meet their self centred agendas.

I hope the vote will be a big “No” and the real revolution begins… (Watch for the rush to the exits by other countries…), people will have their say as will the US come November. Watch for a re-alignment of politics both here and in Europe.

Greg, this is an excellent article. I can’t find even one sentence to quibble over.

As a Pole, I’m particularly glad to see you mention the negative impact on Eastern European countries the free movement of (even white) peoples has. My country is having its best and brightest sucked out of it and into Western countries where they adopt all of the cultural filth that we speak out against here. Not to mention the defect of Polish women which leads them to race-mix with the first black guy they meet west of the Oder.

There is much muddled, shallow and short-term thinking on both sides of the Leave Vs Remain ‘debate’. This article cuts through it all and gets to the core of the issue. I’m going to distribute it to the leading Brexiteers. Others should do so too.

The tyrannical and oppressive European Union is exterminating Europe and the Europeans; it is doing so by preventing us from defending ourselves against the non-white ‘refugee’ invasion, which inevitably and ineluctably will lead to the genocide of the white race and white cultures.
Britain now has the chance to take the lead in rescuing Europe.
Brexit to help save Europe and all Europeans. Brexit for Freedom!
Brexit, then make Britain Great Again!

…
“He [the loathsome Ian Duncan Smith] warned that Indian restaurants were being starved of high-quality chefs from India and Bangladesh by the Government’s ‘biased’ immigration
policy, which caps the number of skilled workers from outside the EU.

He said: ‘This is a serious issue. There are 600 curry restaurants closing down because owners can’t get the right skilled workers to come in.'”

[There have been highly publicised cases of food poisoning in ‘ethnic’ restaurants where the operatives prefer not wash their hands after going to the wc (or after using said hands to wipe their posteriors in lieu of toilet paper – it’s a cultural thing). It seems more likely that restaurants are closing because they can’t get the punters.]

Same edition, editorial page 14:
…
“Last night Mr Cameron acknowledged that we must control migration but the obvious point is that the Government has failed to curb the number of non-EU migrants, which it does have control over, many of whom come to join family already here. Most migration is from outside the EU.” …

Incidentally, you will note the dirty mindplay in their steadfast use of the neutral “migration” and its cognates, which implies an impermanent transience, as opposed to the reality which is PERMANENT COLONISATION, an action more correctly described by use of the word IMMIGRATION, if not INVASION!

Heavens. Are we to conclude that IDS believes that only immigrants from the subcontinent can cook a curry? That to be competent in a particular skill is predicated on ones ethnic origin. Isn’t that a bit, well… Racist?

Great article, it gets the full fourteen points! I agree completely with this. People have to hold their ground, not flee like the cowards they are. I can fully understand that they want to, I’ve often thought about it myself, but I just can’t leave my country. I cannot let it fall in ruins without trying to save it.